ITAT Cuttack Judgments — August 2017

The Tribunal held that merely accepting an addition and paying tax does not automatically warrant a penalty, especially when the assessee's explanation is found to be bonafide and there's no material to show concealment of income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no specific error in its reasoning. It noted that the AO failed to bring material evidence to prove the commission agents were accommodation entry providers and that the payments were not genuine.

The Tribunal held that depreciation should be allowed from the estimated profit, not from the gross contract receipts. It relied on a High Court ruling that depreciation must be allowed when a net profit rate is adopted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the commission expense disallowance, stating that the AO had not brought any material to show the commission payments were not genuine. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal found that the AO was deprived of the opportunity to verify the forms. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the submitted forms and to pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted the appeals on substantial questions of law, the issue was debatable, and therefore, no penalty was leviable. The penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the machinery had not been used for approximately six years and there was uncertainty of their future use due to the government ban. Therefore, it could not be said that the machineries were kept ready for the business.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to EPF deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) should be allowed as a deduction. The issue regarding VAT and sales tax disallowance was dismissed as it was already dealt with by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly conducted as the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening with a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly conducted as the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening with a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly conducted as the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening with a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly conducted as the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening with a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the sorting and chipping expenses. It found that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the expenditure and the manner of payment, and the sister concern lacked substantial business activity in that regard.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was sustainable to the extent of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for interest payments on vehicle loans due to non-deduction of TDS. The AO's compliance with other directions was noted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agent's activities, including market intelligence and order execution, indicated a connection to India. The Tribunal relied on the principle that the source of income is in India if the export activity is fulfilled there.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had not applied due diligence in examining the nature of expenditure and the validity of provisions. The CIT's direction for re-examination was deemed necessary.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 should be for credits in the current year, not opening balances from previous years. Since the advance was a carry-forward balance from prior to the relevant assessment year and accepted in earlier years, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, the AO did not have the authority under Section 200A to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late filing fees for the period before this date was unsustainable.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on bid expenses, finding no infirmity in the assessee's consistent accounting method. Similarly, the addition on interest on unsecured loans was deleted as the assessee was considered to be in business exploring new avenues.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions. It also held that canteen and puja expenses incurred for employee welfare and business goodwill are deductible.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A empowering this levy was prospective. Therefore, the levy of fees was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application. The assessee's AR presented arguments and MOA/AOA clauses to counter the CIT's objections regarding amendments and winding up.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was valid and within the CIT's jurisdiction, as previously upheld by a coordinate bench. Consequently, the consequential assessment order treating dividend income as taxable was also sustained.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the liability was disclosed in the balance sheet due to technical and typographical errors and the assessee had rectified the default. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of evidence and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts, including for standard assets, is allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) if within prescribed limits. It also held that losses on revaluation of securities, consistently claimed and allowed, should be permitted as deductions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the liability was disclosed in the balance sheet due to technical and typographical errors and the assessee had rectified the default. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of evidence and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the non-compliance with the filing requirements, specifically the absence of the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that ownership of land is not necessary for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) if the assessee is the developer of the project. Consistency with previous assessment years where the deduction was allowed on similar facts was also considered.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the voluminous material filed by the assessee, including VDIS disclosures. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine. This was due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and rectify the procedural defects in their appeal filing.

The Tribunal observed that the defects pointed out by the registry were not removed by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was primarily labour supply and works contracts, not a hiring business. The evidence did not sufficiently prove that the machinery was used for hiring, and receipts were categorized under contract income, not rental income. Therefore, the higher depreciation rate was not applicable.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the ledger account and bank statements filed by the assessee before it. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify these documents to determine the genuineness of the liability and re-adjudicate the issue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly accounted for the income from the supply of materials and installation in its sales account and reflected the net debit balance in the Executive Engineer's account in the balance sheet. Therefore, there was no suppression of assets.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the non-rectification of defects and the absence of necessary documents. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the non-rectification of defects and the absence of necessary documents. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable for additions on opening balances of loans received in earlier years. Since the amounts were received prior to the assessment year and the revenue did not controvert the assessee's submissions, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had not made any addition based on the reasons for reassessment but instead made a fresh addition by rejecting books and estimating income. Therefore, the AO's order was not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including the exclusion of 'other income' for 80IA deduction, disallowances on peripheral development, entertainment, miscellaneous, and staff welfare expenses. The Tribunal also addressed prior period expenses and the eligibility of the Orissa Chief Minister's Relief Fund for 80G deduction.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including the exclusion of 'other income' for 80IA deduction, disallowances on peripheral development, entertainment, miscellaneous, and staff welfare expenses. The Tribunal also addressed prior period expenses and the eligibility of the Orissa Chief Minister's Relief Fund for 80G deduction.